How do you rank?

[sebas2mil]

To touch on SW923's point

Let me give you a little touch on what is going to happen as far as scouting for us(1251) at NATS


We are planning to have 6 people with a laptop each inputting data into our scouting software (which in the Power Ranking site you can look at the reports) and then on fri we are going to take all the scroes from every matc (hopefully all divisions) and we are going to put it in our Power Ranking

as far as scouting

if we end up top 8 (hopefully) we are going to look at the robots in our Power Ranking who are from the middle up and then we look at the scouting reports and analizer the teams strategy

if ou have a team that is up top on the rankings but when you look at the reports you find that maybe they are not the best robot and they got upthere becase of maybe good alliance partners then we mioght move on to the next robot

another example would be if we look at a robot and they have the same strategy as we do we are not going to put them on top of our list

it is all relative, if we look at the top 5 teams on the RPI and then compare them to the reports and they all have the same strategy it doesnt mean that they are the best of the best

also if we find a good team on our reports and then we look at the RPI and they are doing bad it doesnt mean that we are putting them down it might just be that they had some bad luck

we use the RPI to help us rank teams in a different way than FIRST
we use the Reports to help us look at the weak and strong points of a robot and then compare them to the power raking


sebas

[allen0977]

Originally Posted by sw293

I would not use these rankings for scouting for three reasons:
1. They are based on incomplete data.
2. An objective formula is a poor substitute for an analysis of a team's performace.
3. You want to rank based on compatibility more than performance when scouting robots, because if you have to pick, you don't want three robots who like to start with the tetra in autonomous or three robots who spend a lot of time in the human loading zone. The rankings look at performance, rather than compatibility.

As one of the developers of this system, I have far better reasons to not use this for scouting ...

<RANT>First off, this system needs no justification or rationalization, it is nothing more than mere "Relative Power Index" power rankings (similar to the BCS). I do this for the NFL teams (http://relativepowerindex.com) and thought a fun port over to US FIRST could prove interesting. it was never intended to be used as an "I am better than you" or "pick me, I'm on the top of the list" ... Statistically, if you look at the NFL rankings for the past 30 years, and compare the rankings week with the following week winners throughout the season, the program is between 30 and 40% accurate at selecting the winner ... lets analyze this a bit more, this means, statistically you have a better chance flipping a coin to determine the winner than using the power ranking ... lets even go a bit further, the home team has a 35% chance of winning (solely on home field advantage), which means if you just select the home team you will be right more often than using the rankings ... and these numbers are consistent for over 30 years of data .. I often mused over the fact, if it's only 40% accurate, selecting the opposite of the "higher ranked" team to win each week would be 60% accurate .. which statistically is significant over this data set ... implying the system is really flipped up-side-down, but I digress

So, to put an end to this banter .. this power ranking is for fun, as a way to measure your team with teams you have not faced, and a way to play with numbers ... but as part of the TechTigers, we will NOT BE GOING SOLELY ON THESE RESULTS for anything ... they help indicate who we'd like to scout further, and who we should talk with as potential partners. It helped us select an alliance at Palmetto, and regardless of the rankings, we would have selected the same teams to go to Finals with. We collect other data throughout the competition ... we'd encourage all teams to stop by and see their "Power Rankings". We will be monitoring and charting the progress during the day Friday and Saturday, but would strongly recommend other methods of scouting to determine alliance partners ... this data is statistics, and by their very nature they are flawed in more ways than this thread can discuss ... but that doesn't stop it from being a fun way to look at data
</RANT>

please use the data for what it is, and don't make it out to be what it's not

thanks
-Allen

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by sw293

For example, at Philadelphia, I ranked my top six: 56, 103, 358, 316, 834, 365. Do a little scouting of your own and look up where those teams finished in Philadelphia. You'll find three champions, two finalists, and one semifinalist. That's how I rank.

5 of your top 6 were in the Relative Power Rankings top 9. That's a very good correlation for two completely disimilar ranking systems. Also, of the Relative Power Ranking's top 6, there were 2 champions, 2 finalists, and 2 semifinalists. I'd say that's pretty good too.

[Joe Domingo]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

5 of your top 6 were in the Relative Power Rankings top 9. That's a very good correlation for two completely disimilar ranking systems. Also, of the Relative Power Ranking's top 6, there were 2 champions, 2 finalists, and 2 semifinalists. I'd say that's pretty good too.

Well spotted Joe!!
Hey do you have all the match results for Sacramento? I think 1251 still wants them.
We furnished Allen B with AZ and Socal.
See you in Atlanta

[Koko Ed]

The FLR information is innacurate.
Each team did 12 qualification matches not 10. Thus our record was not 8-2 but 9-2-1.
Also does the power ranking take into consideration awards won?

[sebas2mil]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The FLR information is innacurate.
Each team did 12 qualification matches not 10. Thus our record was not 8-2 but 9-2-1.
Also does the power ranking take into consideration awards won?

it all depends on the regional you went to some regionals played less matches

we can fix your record all we need if you have it the correct data on the regional you went to or at least the matches you [layed and we will compare them to fix the problem

sebas

[allen0977]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The FLR information is innacurate.
Each team did 12 qualification matches not 10. Thus our record was not 8-2 but 9-2-1.
Also does the power ranking take into consideration awards won?

Unofficial results of the FLR were posted at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=35742

I have no idea about the accuracy of this data, and I know it is incomplete ... but it seemed like a good starting point to bring many of those teams into the ranking system

-Allen

[Kit Gerhart]

While we won't use the rankings for scouting, picking, selling ourselves to to other teams or anything else, I'm glad you put all that work into coming up with the list. It is interesting to look through, and something to discuss in this thread. As you say, the list is "for fun," and I'm glad you compiled it.

Originally Posted by allen0977

As one of the developers of this system, I have far better reasons to not use this for scouting ...

<RANT>First off, this system needs no justification or rationalization, it is nothing more than mere "Relative Power Index" power rankings (similar to the BCS). I do this for the NFL teams (http://relativepowerindex.com) and thought a fun port over to US FIRST could prove interesting. it was never intended to be used as an "I am better than you" or "pick me, I'm on the top of the list" ... Statistically, if you look at the NFL rankings for the past 30 years, and compare the rankings week with the following week winners throughout the season, the program is between 30 and 40% accurate at selecting the winner ... lets analyze this a bit more, this means, statistically you have a better chance flipping a coin to determine the winner than using the power ranking ... lets even go a bit further, the home team has a 35% chance of winning (solely on home field advantage), which means if you just select the home team you will be right more often than using the rankings ... and these numbers are consistent for over 30 years of data .. I often mused over the fact, if it's only 40% accurate, selecting the opposite of the "higher ranked" team to win each week would be 60% accurate .. which statistically is significant over this data set ... implying the system is really flipped up-side-down, but I digress

So, to put an end to this banter .. this power ranking is for fun, as a way to measure your team with teams you have not faced, and a way to play with numbers ... but as part of the TechTigers, we will NOT BE GOING SOLELY ON THESE RESULTS for anything ... they help indicate who we'd like to scout further, and who we should talk with as potential partners. It helped us select an alliance at Palmetto, and regardless of the rankings, we would have selected the same teams to go to Finals with. We collect other data throughout the competition ... we'd encourage all teams to stop by and see their "Power Rankings". We will be monitoring and charting the progress during the day Friday and Saturday, but would strongly recommend other methods of scouting to determine alliance partners ... this data is statistics, and by their very nature they are flawed in more ways than this thread can discuss ... but that doesn't stop it from being a fun way to look at data
</RANT>

please use the data for what it is, and don't make it out to be what it's not

thanks
-Allen

[tiffany34990]

really great work! interesting how you all put it together... it pretty much is accurate to what you see... still it all depends on who you play and who you're with in that respect of luck...

good luck all! thanks again for the list

[Meyerman]

I agree with everything you guys are saying about this the ranking dosnt mean a whole lot cept for who gets to pick when i know team 56 dosnt go down the rankings and hope that team behind us is good we have awsome scouts that rank people on a few different things just like most others do im sure. i know at nj when we were #1 seed we didnt even pick in the top 8. see you all at nationals!!!

[sw293]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

5 of your top 6 were in the Relative Power Rankings top 9. That's a very good correlation for two completely disimilar ranking systems. Also, of the Relative Power Ranking's top 6, there were 2 champions, 2 finalists, and 2 semifinalists. I'd say that's pretty good too.

'cept I made my list before getting the results of the elimination rounds. I'm sure 316 wasn't close to the top 10 before alliance selection.

[JackN]

This system is genius. I think you would definetly need to add abillity to search divisions. Also something needs to be added about aliance partners. This is amazingly cool though and I am glad you brought it up.

[techtiger1]

Originally Posted by 1derboy

This system is genius. I think you would definetly need to add abillity to search divisions. Also something needs to be added about aliance partners. This is amazingly cool though and I am glad you brought it up.

1derboy thank you very much! Team 1251 is just trying to show our ideas to other teams and get our name out there. Having a person from 494 the great martians respond is awesome. Good luck and will see you in Archmedies at nationals.Thanks once again.

[ebmonon36]

I dunno if anyone else noticed this, but 461 is ranked 461st . I found this rather amusing.
Eric

[evolution]

Would there be anyway to look at the power rankings from the techtigers for the 2005 season? The link seems to be down now. Thanks!